On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 7:21 PM Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 2:17 PM Vamsi Kodavanty > <vamsi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 7:33 PM Vamsi Kodavanty > > <vamsi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > Andrii, > > > Thank you for the detailed review. I will address them as well as > > > the self tests. And will send out a new patch addressing them and > > > conforming to style/expectations. > > > > > > Cheers > > > Vamsi. > > > > > Andrii, > > I understand the `bpf` repository being a mirror of the > > `bpf-next` tools/lib/bpf. Do the patches > > to `bpf` go back into `bpf-next`. I see there is a script for > > `bpf-next` to `bpf`syncs. > > I ask because the `btf_vmlinux_override` changes only exist in > > the `bpf` repo. So, I make my > > changes in `bpf`?. In that case what happens to the `selftests` which > > are in `bpf-next`. And they > > won't have any idea of the new open option 'core_btf_path` that is > > being introduced. > > > > There are two Linux upstream repositories to which BPF and libbpf > patches are applied: bpf ([0]) and bpf-next ([1]). Fixes usually go > into bpf, while all the new features go into bpf-next. They are > periodically merged and thus converge. > > Then, specifically for libbpf, there is a Github mirror ([2]), which > is synced by me periodically from bpf-next and bpf trees. This Github > repo is what is considered to be "canonical" libbpf repo for the > purposes of building libbpf packages and consuming libbpf in user > applications. You shouldn't concern yourself with this one when > submitting patches, because it's a derivative of upstream > repositories. > > What is confusing to me, though, is that all three of them have code > with btf_vmlinux_override, so I'm curious which "bpf" repository did > you find that doesn't yet have btf_vmlinux_override? > > [0] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/bpf/bpf.git > [1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/bpf/bpf-next.git > [2] https://github.com/libbpf/libbpf > Thank you again. I was looking at [1]. I cloned the repo today morning and noticed the absence. I just did a 'git pull' and it seems to have the `btf_vmlinux_override` now. So, I will use `bpf-next`. Thank you for the repo links. Also, my earlier diffs were incorrectly using the `libbpf` repo. Regards Vamsi. > > Thanks again. Hopefully this is my last question before I come back to > > you with a proper patch. > > > > Cheers > > Vamsi. > > > > > On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 2:02 PM Andrii Nakryiko > > > <andrii.nakryiko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 8, 2021 at 6:36 PM Vamsi Kodavanty <vamsi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Andrii, > > > > > I have made the following changes as discussed to add an option to the `open_opts` > > > > > to take in the BTF. > > > > > Please do take a look. Also, I am not sure what the procedure is for submitting patches/reviews. > > > > > If anyone has any pointers to a webpage where this is described I can go through it. But, below are > > > > > the proposed changes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Daniel already gave you pointers. Also make sure you add [PATCH > > > > bpf-next] prefix to email subject to identify the patch is for > > > > bpf-next kernel tree. > > > > And with all changes like this we should also add selftests, > > > > exercising new features. Please take a look at > > > > tools/testing/selftests/bpf. I think updating > > > > test_progs/test_core_reloc.c in there to use this instead of > > > > bpf_object__load_xattr() might be enough of the testing. > > > > > > > > > Best Regards, > > > > > Vamsi. > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > src/libbpf.c | 56 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------- > > > > > src/libbpf.h | 4 +++- > > > > > 2 files changed, 43 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-) > > > > > > > [...]
